Reneer Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 Yeah, I guess I'm the one lacking in reading comprehension. If you were aware of these examples that are better comparisons why would you have mentioned e-books at all? And why when a better example/comparison is provided would you return to talking about e-books? I'm not sure what 'the irrelevant banter' revolving around a 'virtual economy' is. If we've found a 'better' comparison then the 'banter' would seem, to me, to be 'more' relevant. The point I was trying to make is, this has already been talked to death, figured out by game companies, and monetized years ago. Nobody is getting a 50 - 50 cut. I use the better comparison and their 60 - 40 cut as a real world example of, what I feel, is the largest cut anyone could expect from a large corporate company. The tenor of the discussion just leads me to believe some folks aren't aware of game companies selling third party assets in their games for years (that are NOT Second Life).The reason I picked e-publishing is because most of the other examples (TF2 items, Second Life, etc) people already have biased opinions on that influence how they look at that virtual economy. If I had mentioned Second Life, for example, people would have immediately jumped on the issue of theft within the SL Marketplace. If I had mentioned TF2 items, people would have a problem with it because everyone thinks Valve is a greedy corporation or pointed out how TF2 items are simply cosmetic. If I had mentioned EverQuest's Player Studio, no one would know what that is. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterMagnus Posted August 7, 2016 Share Posted August 7, 2016 ...people already have biased opinions...If I had mentioned EverQuest's Player Studio, no one would know what that is. :tongue: That would indeed seem to be the case. So the discussion is drug down by peoples pre-conceived notions and lack of broad experience with the topic. I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex55 Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 Technically speaking, when Pete Hines said they would never paid mods again, if that was published(and it was tweet I believe), then reintroducing paid modding is...here's the payoff, his original statement would then be a false statement, which Bethesda/ZeniMax could then be sued for in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 On what planet would he ever actually get sued for that though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reneer Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Technically speaking, when Pete Hines said they would never paid mods again, if that was published(and it was tweet I believe), then reintroducing paid modding is...here's the payoff, his original statement would then be a false statement, which Bethesda/ZeniMax could then be sued for in a court of law.I love it when people make up laws. Edited August 9, 2016 by Reneer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve40 Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 (edited) Technically speaking, when Pete Hines said they would never paid mods again, if that was published(and it was tweet I believe), then reintroducing paid modding is...here's the payoff, his original statement would then be a false statement, which Bethesda/ZeniMax could then be sued for in a court of law. Edited August 9, 2016 by steve40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex55 Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Technically speaking, when Pete Hines said they would never paid mods again, if that was published(and it was tweet I believe), then reintroducing paid modding is...here's the payoff, his original statement would then be a false statement, which Bethesda/ZeniMax could then be sued for in a court of law.I love it when people make up laws. Sorry, I meant to say that would fall under the Consumer Protection Act...which I do believe covers false statements by Companies, of course you'd have to file complaints with the Consumer Protection Agency proving how it goes against the Consumer Protection Act, and it is POSSIBLE, but NOT very likely to work. There, does that sound better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Never happen. "We will never allow paid mods again" wouldn't even cross the threshold of importance. Any lawyer who took the case on your behalf would only be in it to bleed you dry of funds because they already know they can't win that. All Bethesda would have to do is say "we changed our minds and it's a thing now" and there you go. Besides, I don't recall ever seeing Hines put out a blanket statement saying they'd never do it again. Just statements that can be construed as "not right now". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reneer Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) Sorry, I meant to say that would fall under the Consumer Protection Act...which I do believe covers false statements by Companies, of course you'd have to file complaints with the Consumer Protection Agency proving how it goes against the Consumer Protection Act, and it is POSSIBLE, but NOT very likely to work. ÃÃÂ There, does that sound better now.Except it wouldn't. State Consumer Protection Acts only cover false advertising. Even if Pete Hines had said "we will never do paid mods again, ever" (which he most certainly didn't), that doesn't mean anything in terms of someone filing a complaint against Bethesda. Companies change their products and what services they do / do not offer all the time - it is the company's right to do so as part of their business. You don't get to (successfully) sue a company or file a complaint for doing something that is perfectly legal. Edited August 10, 2016 by Reneer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve40 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 (edited) Sorry, I meant to say that would fall under the Consumer Protection Act...which I do believe covers false statements by Companies, of course you'd have to file complaints with the Consumer Protection Agency proving how it goes against the Consumer Protection Act, and it is POSSIBLE, but NOT very likely to work. ÃÃÂ There, does that sound better now.Except it wouldn't. State Consumer Protection Acts only cover false advertising. Even if Pete Hines had said "we will never do paid mods again, ever" (which he most certainly didn't), that doesn't mean anything in terms of someone filing a complaint against Bethesda. Companies change their products and what services they do / do not offer all the time - it is the company's right to do so as part of their business. You don't get to (successfully) sue a company or file a complaint for doing something that is perfectly legal. Let's sue the Eagles for doing their Hell Freezes Over tour !!!!! :devil:(when asked if they would ever do another tour, they responded, "sure, when hell freezes over"). Edited August 11, 2016 by steve40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts